The court that approved surveillance of a former campaign adviser to President Trump was aware that some of the information underpinning the warrant request was paid for by a political entity, although the application did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter....

The Justice Department made “ample disclosure of relevant, material facts” to the court that revealed “the research was being paid for by a political entity,” said one official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity.

“No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said....

So, it seems, the question is whether it was significantly deceptive to give the FISA court enough information to make it possible for the court to infer that the information came from people who were biased against Trump but to withhold the known and specific information that it was paid for by the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.

Can we say that very clearly and ask fair-minded people if withholding the specific information and including only general information was the the way the Justice Department should interact with the FISA court?

Secondly, exactly how was this general information phrased? The unnamed official in the WaPo article says there was "ample disclosure" — but how much disclosure was there? WaPo is reporting that the application "did not specifically name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign," which is to say that the application did not name the Democratic National Committee or the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. It did something else that's supposedly just as good or almost as good or not good enough at all.

I want to know exactly what the language was and how deceptive it may have been, and I'd like to see the opinion of some named experts who have been expressing themselves over a long period of time about the role of the FISA court. I don't want Trump-specific opinions. I want to hear from experts whose opinion of working with FISA extends back into the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, listen to Glenn Greenwald calling on his fellow lefties to remember their conscience:

IN THE COMMENTS: exhelodrvr1 said:

So is it normal to not give the FISA court the entire picture? If so, that would mean that the FISA court is aware of that, which is really scary.

Great question, because if the argument is what was done is fine because it's normal, we need to talk about the problem with FISA normal.

And it's an old exercise, and I hate to trot out clichés, but imagine if the Bush Justice Department had used the FISA court to get a warrant to surveil people on Barack Obama's presidential campaign by using evidence that came from someone paid by the RNC and the John McCain campaign and the application for the warrant had omitted naming the RNC and the John McCain campaign.

Who are the two US officials familiar with the matter cited in this story? Comey and Rosenstein? Are they the same ones who were against releasing the memo as it would allegedly cause grave danger?

The bigger issue here is that these preceding are all ex parte and the substance of the Steele dossier was unverified by the FBI.

Try this. A Trump hating partisan was paid money by the DNC to get fed false info by the Russians on Trump. This was done in the first place in order to slander Trump in the press as an October surprise. The press, however, wouldn’t print the lies so Plan B was to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

Withholding specific information and details is by definition deceptive. They had to be deceptive because disclosing all the information would likely cause the application to be rejected. Or at least they believed it would.

It is an old and too often used argument but I will say it anyway: imagine the reaction from the NYT, WaPo, and the Left if the political party roles were reversed. Outrage to infinity.

Unknown, is it a too often used argument? It's so true that I think it bears repeating often.

I totally agree with your point--the names Clinton and DNC were not left off inadvertantly. There was a conscious decision to leave them out. Any of these "reasonable people" who are supposed to exonerate the process would naturally take that into account.

As of last night, mild mannered Tucker stands accused as being an agent of a foreign government, in accordance with the Dems and their revised MSM war room script. That is the new reality that rules from inside the MSM shills' Berlin bunker.

Ergo: if a guest books on Tucker Carlson's show they morph into enemies of the State by association.

When creating documents like these warrant applications, there are rules on so-called "minimization" of at least some information that is not publicly available, when that information is not critical for a reader's understanding of the matter. (I do not know if the identities of the DNC and the Hillary campaign as funders of the memo would be covered by minimization rules.) As I understand the rules, when they apply, a writer is supposed to use phrases of the form "[named] [nationality] [type of entity]", based on how much is credibly known about the entity. For example, "named US national politician" would be one minimized way to refer to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. If the person's name is not known, but nationality and sex are, a writer might refer to an "Australian man".

So to resolve the debate over what the FBI and DOJ disclosed, and whether they disclosed (and minimized!) everything they were supposed to, we would need to know whether minimization rules applied to the entities who funded the research, the exact wording used to identify those funders in the warrant applications, ... and the political affiliations of the people arguing over it.

Even if you can decide whether minimization rules apply in the particular case, and know what the warrant applications said, there is a huge amount of judgment involved in deciding whether the applications should say "named US political entities" (which could be any lefty groups) or "named US political party and named US political campaign" (which makes it pretty clear it was the DNC and Clinton's campaign).

Reframing the debate. Yes the source is o position research. Contracted for research. Using Russian sources. Hiring Russians to sway the elections is a crime, yes? But that's not really the issue. Comey testified before congress that the dossier was never able to be verified. The DOJ used information they they tried, and failed to verify.

When is it appropriate to use rumors as a basis of a warrant, (oh, and backed up by media reporting?

And it’s an old exercise, and I hate to trot out clichés, but imagine if the Bush Justice Department ...

Pointless question. They can’t hear you. I found out yesterday that they think that Trump supporters place their membership in the white race over country, and let this all slide on account of Putin is white. It’s like the old “dual loyalty” charge that racists used to level at Jews and Catholics. How do you reason with bigots like that? And obviously, reading the testimony of Simpson, who never mentioned that out of a dozen employees of Fusion GPS, one of them was married to a guy in Obama’s DoJ, he was as anti-Trump as Inga, so was Steele.

And it's an old exercise, and I hate to trot out clichés, but imagine if the Bush Justice Department had used the FISA court to get a warrant to surveil people on Barack Obama's presidential campaign by using evidence that came from someone paid by the RNC and the John McCain campaign and the application for the warrant had omitted naming the RNC and the John McCain campaign

What gets me about the argument, readering was making the same one yesterday, is the assumption that FISA judges are somehow like the fictional Vulcans on Star Trek, relentlessly logical. If you read Simpson’s testimony, he was searching his mind for things to pin on Trump, for instance it bothered him that Trump went to Russia four times and never came away with a crooked real-estate deal.

Every contract I have ever read, even for something as getting telephone service, says that it is full and complete agreement between the parties. But now we are to believe, according to somebody named Unnamed Sources, that yea we kinda told the court where the dossier might have come from so that's ok. Doesn't quite add up to full and complete. Kind of sounds like withholding information that might be useful to the defense, which seems to happen a lot these days.

And the setting here is the FISA court that supposedly has a high bar that must be met before a warrent is issued, specially before the government can spy on an American citizen.

Remember, we are talking about the Obama administration spying on the campaign of the Republican candidate for President, and then the President Elect.

ChuckPresident Trump or any human being has no moral obligation to confirm or deny any thing said in a CLOSED DOOR, PRIVATE POLITICAL NEGOTIATING meeting.

Abuse of FISA doesn't equal "what Trump said in a private political meeting.

Who is stone walling release of the FISA "warrant"? It's not Republicans. It's not the WH. It's the same institutions exposed by the "Memo". These institutions like the IRS will slow roll the release of information just like the IRS because the preservation of the bureaucrats is more important than the US Constitution and the rule of law.

He is. Sid Blumenthal who was getting paid 10K a month by the Clinton Foundation, which got 145 million dollars from Putin cronies and as Hillary destroyed records of meetings and emails from the time she got the money, that Sid Blumenthal was also peddling these same stories in a doppelgänger “dossier”

You have to remember how he got the name “Sid Vicious” it had to do with mercilessly and unscrupulously attacking any and all opponents of the Clintons, including the women whom Bill Clinton sexually assaulted

Let’s see, I will hire an oppo research firm and feed them dirt I made up out of whole cloth. It’s slander laundering, and they whipped it up to such a froth that they managed, for a short while, to put impeachment on the table.

The FISA court did not ask which "political entity" supplied the info, or the circumstances of the arrangement? As others have pointed out, that is even more disturbing if true. I find it hard to believe that a judge would not press for such details, but am reminded that there is a lot going on nowadays that I would have found it hard to believe until it became commonplace.

I am less surprised that WAPO would not raise this question in their article.

I am still wondering what the "grave national security concerns" about this memo are. Perhaps the national security concern is that it shows what a paper tiger the FISA court is? Wouldn't want that to get out, would we?

When is the FEC going to go after Clinton for saying the money paid to Fusion was for “Legal expenses” BTW? They hopped right to it when she wanted that anti Hillary movie suppressed, and they sued Citizens United. Didn’t they put that National Review writer in jail for a minor violation that a slap on the hand would have solved?

But we are supposed to believe that this is all on the “up and up” and no “deep state” exists.

BTW, all of the unmaskings that nobody knows who was doing it was of Americans incidentally caught up in surveillance of foreigners, and so no warrant was even needed. They just helped themselves and pawed through those conversations using Samantha Powers’ name.

Kind of like when they went after Walker and they filed away stuff they got under subpoena as Opposition Research. When they indicted Weinberger days before the election on charges where the statute of limitations had run out. When they withheld exculpatory information to. indict Ted Stevens, costing him the election. I could go on.

I want to know exactly what the language was and how deceptive it may have been...

I’ll agree with Althouse in this case; of course I’d now like to see the warrant applications and transcripts from the FISA/District Courts....

Here's something we agree on. We should all see this application (unredacted) along with the transcript of the hearing, with all of the participants identified.

+++++++++++++++++++++

As the saying goes (sort of), men are not angels, which is why you need gov't, but, since the gov't is made of men, they too are not angels and must be watched carefully. Many, particularly those on the left, tend to forget the second part. Those of us who've dealt with the legal system on a daily basis know that it is full of unscrupulous actors (on all sides).

As long as we're imagining things: Imagine if candidate Trump had paid for unverified dirt on Hillary from Russian and British spies, and peddled it to the FBI. Would they have gone to the FISA court to get a warrant to spy on Podesta or some other Clinton staffer who had known ties to Russia? No; the dossier would've never made it to the FISA court because Trump would've been arrested for "collusion" or treason and whatever else they could think of.

The laws are applied differently to Democrats and Republicans, so there is no rule of law. As for lefties having a conscience, there is Dershowitz and Greenwald. Anyone else?

“No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said....

If everyone (DOJ, FBI, FISA court) knew the dossier was oppo-financed fiction, and if everyone knew the real target was Trump,doesn’t that make their actions worse? It makes the DOJ look better for not having deceived the court, but now you essentially have a conspiracy to initiate government spying on a presidential candidate without real justification .

It is especially rich and remarkable that this abuse is of a mechanism of government, FISA, that was created by Ted Kennedy, with co-sponsors, and signed into law by Jimmy Carter as a response to Nixon's misuse of the government to spy on his political opponents.

Night Owl said: "The laws are applied differently to Democrats and Republicans, so there is no rule of law. As for lefties having a conscience, there is Dershowitz and Greenwald. Anyone else?"

It only requires one step back to get clarity and perspective on what happen here. That's why the left is so desperate to confuse issues and redirect the discussion. In spite of the press and the FBI/DOJ, the American people finally have some facts and those facts are damning of the FBI and the Democrat Party.

“No thinking person who read any of these applications would come to any other conclusion but that” the work was being undertaken “at the behest of people with a partisan aim and that it was being done in opposition to Trump,” the official said....

That may be true now that we know so much else about the surveillance and the investigation. Was it true a priori? Did the warrant applications adequately disclose that the proposed target of surveillance was associated with Trump's campaign? In particular, if they did apply "minimization" rules to hide the identities of the DNC and the Clinton campaign, did they similarly hide either the identity of Trump's campaign, or Carter Page's affiliation with it? If they did, would unmasking those facts cast a different light on the application?

The Left keeps digging the hole deeper. Now they've inadvertently exposed possible problems of FISA courts themselves. The courts (FISA) and their mandates, makeups, and usage are due a thorough investigation

"Spying on a political opponent ought to be more off limits than spying on Americans in general, when it comes to tough calls."

No. When it comes to tough calls, it's easy: Spying on Americans in general--that's you, me, and everyone--and on political opponents--violates everyone's privacy and Constitutional rights, and discovery of such spying should be prosecuted and not permitted by looking away, or, worse, by "legalizing" it.

If it comes down (for some reason) to a choice between the two, fuck the politicians, it is the American people who are sovereign and whose rights are paramount.

My take from Greenwald is that the FISA is a rubber stamp process. But the central issue still is that the FBI was knowingly engaged in partisan activities. That is illegal whether FISA was involved or not. The FBI knew that the dossier was tainted by Democratic money but continued, or for that very reason continued, with the surveillance. It was expressly for partisan purposes. Let's not get bogged down with the technical details of FISA. The FBI was engaged in partisan activities, period.

Take Huma Abedin from the Clinton campaign. There've been ridiculous conspiracy theories about her being an agent of various foreign powers. Those are based on things she's written or said. Was she ever under surveillance, since the "evidence" about her is as thick as that against Carter Page (to say: practically none but conjecture.)

If Carter Page were a Democrat, he'd never have been put under FBI surveillance.

I'd like to know whether or not the FISA court knew that the data in the dossier was unverified. I'd like to think that they would've denied the warrants if they were aware the data in the dossier was bogus. Because otherwise, if the court is ok with spying on Americans based on rumors, innuendos and lies coming from the opposition party in an election year, we can expect that the intelligence agencies and the FISA court are going to be very active in all future elections. Are lefties really OK with that?

"So is it normal to not give the FISA court the entire picture? If so, that would mean that the FISA court is aware of that, which is really scary."

Uh, yes!

As Greenwald said, the FISA court is a secret court--itself a contradiction and violation of the Constitution--and they approve virtually every request for surveillance brought before them. It essentially is a sham that legitimizes surveillance of anyone the sitting government wants to spy on.

Of course, most of the spying by the American government on American citizens isn't even brought before the FISA court...it is simply part of the everyday activities of the intelligence communities. All this greater body of perpetual surveillance of Americans not brought before the FISA court (or any court) is, by definition, unconstitutional and illegal. (Cases approved by the FISA court are at least nominally "legal," as a court has rendered its rubber stam--er, it's judgement.)

"Withholding specific information and details is by definition deceptive."

-- The biggest issue is since the defendant obviously can't be in the room, the government has a moral and ethical obligation to disclose everything it knows, including exculpatory information, to the FISA court. Do you think a warrant would have been issued if they knew: "Thus far, the only thing we've verified is the public knowledge that Carter Page is a Russian expert and traveled to Russia and that, according to some sources paid by a British spy who hates Trump and is on the payroll of the DNC, he said if Trump were elected, he'd have a different foreign policy with Russia. Our British spy cannot verify the statement, and he won't tell us his sources, our own sources can't verify that statement was ever made. We have had to fire Steele because he has lied to us and broken confidentiality requirements, including selling his story to various media. There are several facts that are unverified, and many which are flat out wrong in the dossier. But, could we have a warrant anyway? We call it a JIC warrant -- Just In Case."

"I'd like to know whether or not the FISA court knew that the data in the dossier was unverified. I'd like to think that they would've denied the warrants if they were aware the data in the dossier was bogus. Because otherwise, if the court is ok with spying on Americans based on rumors, innuendos and lies coming from the opposition party in an election year, we can expect that the intelligence agencies and the FISA court are going to be very active in all future elections."

What makes you think they're not and haven't been? Haven't you paid attention to Snowden's revelations? The intelligence agencies are spying on everyone all the time.

Do you think the FISA court even bothered to wonder or ask if the information was unverified? They're not there to render considered judgement based on careful appraisal of evidence, they're there simply to give their imprimatur to whatever the government wishes to do, to provide a patina of legality to the shabby proceedings.

Do you think the FISA court even bothered to wonder or ask if the information was unverified? They’re not there to render considered judgement based on careful appraisal of evidence, they're there simply to give their imprimatur to whatever the government wishes to do, to provide a patina of legality to the shabby proceedings.

Its interesting that both Fox and the Washington Examiner clearly got this leaked to them about an hour early so they could start posting and and spinning in the hour before release.

When you need to cheat to get your spin out, its clear that its a trick.

Why didnt Nunes include this information in the memo? It would strengthen his case .... so why was it left out intentionally? Only reason it isnt in tbe memo is because if they were complete about what was said in the FISA court it would undermine the memo.

Eifher Nunes is an idiot or he deliberately left off this information. Either or.

Her mother lives in Saudi Arabia and is a Saudi employee (professor). That makes Huma eminently blackmailable. Was she? Perhaps not, though she always had an awful lot of money. $400,000 townhouse on $40,000 salary should raise eyebrows.

"And it's an old exercise, and I hate to trot out clichés, but imagine if the Bush Justice Department...etc., etc.

"They would already be serving their prison terms....8 years in."

No, they wouldn't be. After all, they weren't prosecuted, or even investigated, for mounting an illegal war in Iraq, or in authorizing torture of captives as official policy.

Do you honestly think either of our major parties is really interested in upholding the law? (I think some individuals in each party do, but the parties as power structures do not, and no president does.)

The American political establishment protects its own. If one party or president actually prosecuted the prior administration for violations of the law, that party or president would fear (and could expect) to be prosecuted for their own violations of the law by the next administration.

Each administration's law-breaking is ignored by the next, thereby validating each succeeding administration's law-breaking.

-- Let's look at those unclassified documents. First, per Section 2, the FBI/NSA had consent from Steele to use all of his dossier. Second, per the definitions, the "Clinton campaign" and "DNC" are the equivalent of brand names or companies, and are not considered identification of U.S. persons. But, the biggest problem is this isn't abut minimizing the information given to the FISA courts. It is about data handling and retention. Meaning you've fundamentally misunderstood the point of the document -- and even if you were right, the plain stated definitions sections makes it clear that there is no minimization issue.

----

"And part of the US Code defines minimization procedures in a marginally related context."

"(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1), shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;"

--> Knowing that the document was paid for by Clinton, and shopped around by Clinton to be published to hurt Trump political is VITAL to assessing the value of the document. Not that this matters. That law isn't regarding the FISA warrant, it is about what to do with the information/documents obtained:

"(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."

--> Again, you've misunderstood the law (or had it misrepresented to you.) This isn't about FISA applications. It is about what to do with the communications AFTER they've been obtained.

Whoever told you minimization required Clinton/DNC not to be mentioned lied to you.

If the Government discovers that a submission to the Court contains a misstatement or omission of material fact, the Government, in writing, must immediately inform the Judge to whom the submission was made..."

Did the FBI do this when they discovered that it was the DNC and Hillary campaign that funded the report? After all, this thing was renewed three times after its initial 90 day period.

I am curious about the FISA extensions. I don’t think Page could have been in any interactive setting with Trump and his team over that time. What basis for the extensions? What info was being collected thru them, and why did the extension requests end?

Tim, believe it or not, I don't consider myself cynical. I just look at what is actually going on. My illusions have been erased. What we're taught growing up about the unique (and innate) virtue and goodness of the United States is simply propaganda, meant to indoctrinate us so we won't question the government's actions or statements. The founders of the nation were well aware of the danger of unchecked power in the hands of government--having experienced it from the British. The Bill of Rights exists because of their clear-sighted awareness of what governments--all governments--do.

"If everyone (DOJ, FBI, FISA court) knew the dossier was oppo-financed fiction, and if everyone knew the real target was Trump,doesn’t that make their actions worse?"

-- Not really. In that case you can argue, "We knew it might not be verified, but it was a risk too big not to take, plus the information would be destroyed if we found nothing, we couldn't know it would leak!" It would have been the fig leaf they needed to not look irresponsible.

Greene sod commented the FISA court has a 99.8% approval rate on surveillance.

I wish trump would pardon Snowden and Assange.

The hypocrisy of both Democrats and Republicans on surveillance is breath taking.

Good news is the deep state is fighting Trump no hold barred, and Trump punches back. And drags his opponents into the mud with him. I believe something good will come out of this. I hope it’s not buried with a few retirements like happened with the IRS scandal.

"Greenwald is correct to focus on who is to blame here, the people who created the FISA court and the people who just reauthorized it."

-- If the FISA laws had been complied with, then Carter Page may not have been surveilled. We certainly wouldn't have had hundreds of unmaskings using a false credential. The law may be bad, but if it had been followed, we wouldn't be in this spot to begin with. Attempting to muddy the waters with general FISA complaints seems silly, since *it doesn't matter how bad the law was, it wasn't followed.* Specifically regarding retention of communications and protecting them from unauthorized viewing and release.

The memo is a "nothing-burger" in the sense it contains nothing we did not already know or considered a virtual certainty.

But, that Devin Nunes was able to finally get it released in the face of the hysterical opposition to it mounted by the Democrats and the bureaucracy is a major setback to the Democrat operators on the Washington merry-go-round. Loss of face, etc.

And, if it works like loosening a key log in a logjam, there may be a lot more to come. Even out in fly-over country, people may take to asking the Washington Democrats to show just what details in the memo are wrong or missing and prove their case.

"(2) Extensions of an order issued under this subchapter may be granted on the same basis as an original order upon an application for an extension and new findings made in the same manner as required for an original order, except that (A) an extension of an order under this chapter for a surveillance targeted against a foreign power, as defined in paragraph (5), (6), or (7) of section 1801(a) of this title, or against a foreign power as defined in section 1801(a)(4) of this title that is not a United States person, may be for a period not to exceed one year if the judge finds probable cause to believe that no communication of any individual United States person will be acquired during the period, and (B) an extension of an order under this chapter for a surveillance targeted against an agent of a foreign power who is not a United States person may be for a period not to exceed 1 year.

(3) At or before the end of the period of time for which electronic surveillance is approved by an order or an extension, the judge may assess compliance with the minimization procedures by reviewing the circumstances under which information concerning United States persons was acquired, retained, or disseminated."

-- Why did the FBI, once they learned that Page wasn't a high ranking member of Trump's inner circle, immediately end the surveillance since they learned new information that meant their original theory (that he was a high-placed plant in Trump's foreign policy ring)? In addition, why was their surveillance not stopped once it was learned that agents within the FBI/DoJ were deliberately using false credentials to unmask people in violation of the minimization laws -- something that was being done solely because surveillance of Page happened to overlap with surveillance of the Trump campaign?

Do you think a warrant would have been issued if they knew: "Thus far, the only thing we've verified is the public knowledge that Carter Page is a Russian expert and traveled to Russia and that, according to some sources paid by a British spy who hates Trump and is on the payroll of the DNC, he said if Trump were elected, he'd have a different foreign policy with Russia. Our British spy cannot verify the statement, and he won't tell us his sources, our own sources can't verify that statement was ever made. We have had to fire Steele because he has lied to us and broken confidentiality requirements, including selling his story to various media. There are several facts that are unverified, and many which are flat out wrong in the dossier. But, could we have a warrant anyway? We call it a JIC warrant -- Just In Case."

Her mother lives in Saudi Arabia and is a Saudi employee (professor). That makes Huma eminently blackmailable. Was she? Perhaps not, though she always had an awful lot of money. $400,000 townhouse on $40,000 salary should raise eyebrows.

Nobody else would get a security clearance with humas background.

I suspect we'll be hearing about this more.

John Henry

Do you realize how close you have effectively come, to describing Stephen Miller?

What makes you think they're not and haven't been? Haven't you paid attention to Snowden's revelations? The intelligence agencies are spying on everyone all the time.

OK, I'm aware that in your worldview everyone in the American govt is evil, has always been evil and will stay evil, and therefore we should just get in line, get our number and march into the gulag already.

But seriously, of course I'm aware -- as are others-- that these systems are prone to abuse. Which is why people are making a stink about this. Would it be better if we stay silent and not question what they're doing? Shouldn't we be demanding more transparency and accountability from the people who are spying on us?

The key distinction is that the DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA probable cause order (not under Title VII).

What that phrase meant is that Carter Page was considered to be an intelligence AGENT, actively trying to obtain information and cooperation from US persons for the Russian intelligence service.

If Page had been under Title VII, then the DOJ/FBI perspective would have been that the Russian intelligence service was trying to obtain intelligence and cooperation from Page.

So, because Page was not under Title VII and because he therefore was considered to be an intelligence AGENT of Russia, the FBI was allowed to collect MUCH MORE information with US persons who were in communication with Page.

Also: Remember that knowing it was Flynn talking with an unknown foreign person was key to understanding information about Page, per the minimization rules that we were cited (somehow), yet... knowing DNC (not an individual, but an organization which is not protected by minimization) paid for the document was not allowed by the minimization rules -- if we're to believe the way Michael P presented the minimization rules.

"One official speaking on the condition of anonymity equals bullshit in my book."

Keep in mind that they are talking about a classified document - the FISA wiretap application. We can't know what is in the document, for that reason, and as a result, they can claim whatever they want. Moreover, we saw with the text messages between Stryck and Page just how this anonymous source thing is played - some high level official (quite often a career govt employee) wants to spin the news cycle his way, and calls up a journalist friend, who publishes it as coming from just st such a "one official speaking on the condition of anonymity". And we have found out that much of this "anonymous" spin turns out to be self-serving BS. But, no doubt, the Ingas of the world will be citing this as definitive proof that the FISC did know where the information in the warrant application was coming from, and the Court was fine with it.

Adapted from a WSJ P.N. comment. The cleansing is upon us Burn it all down. Sell off D.C to pay down debt. We forget this is a replay of AJ. The parties tried to depose him. He faced death in Duels to win, killing his foes esp. the press that shamed his wife in front of his children, after fair warning. Tears until after inauguration. Met the promise to immolate his swamp by killing both parties until they remembered they served their people not the party. And were not in the Constitution. Gone for a decade. Where are the people T fired? Still in his morning meetings. Note Bannon has AJ's profile, even if T tried or died this world-wide revolution can’t be stopped. .Why and how? Trigger warning. All of them https://youtu.be/Uj3YA-JDv-k

"You calling Greenwald silly on something he is unarguably one of the world's experts strikes a jarring note."

-- No. I'm saying that what you're doing is silly. Greenwald's general complaints about FISA are fine, but trying to shift the problem about the FISA court's specific abuses here into a general, "oh, but it is always bad," is a deliberate attempt to ignore the specific problem. I don't know what Greenwald said, I just know how you're presenting it.

If the law had been followed, even though it is a bad law, we wouldn't HAVE to be talking about the abuse of Carter Page by the FISA court, because even that bad law SHOULD HAVE PROTECTED HIM.

Blogger Dave Begley said...The FISC court, on its own motion, can issue an order to show cause why the DOJ shouldn’t be held in contmpt. Or at least a Rule 11 violation.

Respectfully, I think you may be right although Rule 11 is part of the FRCP (emphasize the “Civ.” in the “C”) and I’m not at all sure what effect it might have in a FISA court. Although as we both know, FISA courts are re-purposed District Courts.

More importantly I think, if the warrant applications were so defective, they will poison any subsequent prosecutions. And any attempted prosecution would be exposed in open court.

So, we’ll see. I am looking forward to more information. Hopefully more clarity.

The DOJ and FBI treated Carter Page under Title I, which supposed that he was an AGENT of the Russian Intelligence service.

Therefore, if Page communicated with a Trump associate, the FBI was allowed to assume that Page was trying to obtain intelligence and cooperation from that Trump associate FOR the Russian Intelligence service.

If the DOJ and FBI had treated Page under Title VII, then the FBI would have been limited to the perspective that the Russian Intelligence service was trying to obtain intelligence and cooperation FROM Page. Under Title VII, the FBI could not collect so much information about Trump associates communicating with Page.

The DOJ/FBI "proof" that Page was an AGENT was the dossier provided by Fusion GPS.

The president's highest duty, the only thing he swears to in oath of office is to protect and defend the Constitution.

Without the constitution nothing else matters. All else, including our security derives from it

Though technically correct, protecting the country has long been considered necessary to protecting the Construction. You see this in separation of powers judicial opinions where a President claims a higher duty to protect the country. By now, it is accepted by many that he is the only one whose oath specifically requires defending the American people and the country itself.

Matthew Sablan, I think you misunderstand my position. As I said, those documents do not clearly support (or reject) the idea that the DNC and the Clinton campaign's identities should be minimized. Because both (R)s and (D)s acknowledge that the identities were not explicit in the warrant applications, but (D)s offer a talking point that the nature of these parties were obvious, I hypothesize that minimization is going to be a defense for not identifying them more specifically. No one has told me that minimization was required, and I tend to think it was neither required nor really justifiable.

There are more kinds of minimization than described in those documents; for example, a Google search easily finds minimization rules for filings in Florida courts. Those are obviously quite different in extent and purpose than those for intercepted communications. Because I do not know all the minimization rules that might apply, I did not offer a conclusion that none of them apply.

Also, the exclusion you mention for brand names and manufacturers is in the context of commercial products or services, not as parties who are a party to, or a subject of, an intercepted communication. FISA defines "United States persons" to include "an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States" (50 USC sec. 1801 (i)). As an example, I think that if someone mentions they went to Subway for lunch, that need not be minimized, but if a foreign agent says their cover involves working for Subway, and the employer's identity is not important to understanding the larger context, it should be minimized there.

"As I said, those documents do not clearly support (or reject) the idea that the DNC and the Clinton campaign's identities should be minimized."

- They absolutely reject that the DNC should have been minimized. The definitions specifically say that names or identifying corporations/brands do not need to be minimized. Did you actually read the documents?

"Also, the exclusion you mention for brand names and manufacturers is in the context of commercial products or services, not as parties who are a party to, or a subject of, an intercepted communication. "

Seems to me like we are missing the elephant in the room. The FISA Judge was in on it. Stop believing the judge is incapable of reading the memo and seeing it as trash. The Judge probably helped draft the application to best protect themselves and the requester.

Also: You're still misinterpreting the law you cited. That is about information contained in the communications -- not the information to be provided to get a warrant. The warrant documents are classified, potentially secret. There is no purpose to minimization in the court documents that are cited here, since the FISA court *should not be leaking.*

This is all bullshit on steroids. The story admits that the court wasn't informed who paid for the dossier. What the story seems to imply, though, is that the court also didn't ask where it came from.

Here is exactly what we need here- to see the applications themselves, and the court transcripts. What questions did the judge ask about the source, who paid the source, and what parts of the dossier were verified. If I were Nunes, I would subpoena the FISC judge/s who participated, and I would subpoena the court transcripts ASAP.

Also, I will point out that until we see the actual application, we don't know what parts of the dossier were quoted in the applications for the warrants. This is a big missing detail. The applications regarding Page might only have included the parts about Page that are in the dossier.

It is stuff like this for which I argue full transparency is basically the only thing that will ever help regain my trust in these agencies. Nothing less will suffice.

Now that we understand the distinction between Title I and Title VII, we can suppose that DOJ/FBI counter-intelligence officials secretly had advised Fusion GPS and Steele in or before July 2016 to concoct evidence that Carter Page was an AGENT of the Russian Intelligence service.

Why Carter Page in particular?

Because the DOJ/FBI already had enough information about Page to treat him under Title VII.

The DOJ/FBI needed some more "evidence" about Page in order to elevate him from merely Title VII up to Title I.

After the dossier enabled the DOF/FBI to elevate Page up to Title I, then the FBI would be allowed by FISA to collect much more information about all the people in communication with Page, because Page now was considered to be an AGENT of the Russian Intelligence service.

My instincts tell me that Judge Contreras was most likely the judge who signed off on the FISA warrant that led to the surveillance of Donald Trump’s campaign officials, that included National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn.

Those FBI FISA warrants are now coming under scrutiny.

It would be EXPLOSIVE if it turned out that the FISA warrants were gained by deception, misleading information, manipulated information, or fraud…. and that warrant led to the wiretapping and surveillance of General Michael Flynn was authorized by Contreras…. who would now be the judge in Flynn’s case.

"Also, I will point out that until we see the actual application, we don't know what parts of the dossier were quoted in the applications for the warrants. This is a big missing detail. The applications regarding Page might only have included the parts about Page that are in the dossier."

-- I want to see the places/things/locations that they wanted to put surveillance in. I want to know how large of a net they cast to catch Page, because my suspicion is that it was ridiculously broad.

"If the DOJ and FBI had treated Page under Title VII, then the FBI would have been limited to the perspective that the Russian Intelligence service was trying to obtain intelligence and cooperation FROM Page. Under Title VII, the FBI could not collect so much information about Trump associates communicating with Page."

Except that Title I involves the intentional interception of electronic communications (including wiretaps), while Title VII involves searching massive databases of inadvertently intercepted electronic communications. And, in practice, this includes a large percentage of Internet traffic worldwide. The NSA's 702 databases of intercepted communications are sitting there, primarily, I think, at a massive data facility in Utah, just waiting to be searched. No doubt they could read these blog contents very quickly upon proper authorization, based on searching for one of us (and, Google no doubt has given them enough identification information that they could identify any of us that they wanted to). Which is one big reason that the standard was supposed to have been set higher with Title VII searches of information relating to US Persons likely to be in the US (which is most of us, and most of Trump's team).

The judge would have had to be aware of and, at least, sympathetic to the political purpose of the application.

But this would have been arranged by selecting the correct judge, and the judges role would remain in pectore, known only to the judge. Unless there were written, recorded communications concerning this, which would be idiotic.

The comments and perspective offered above are ... awesome (Oh how I hate that word.).

But, sadly, it's all meaningless. No one will be held accountable; the feckless FISA court will simply collect their (large) paychecks and continue to rubber-stamp all requests, and the kabuki will continue.

What REALLY irritates me, however, is the extraordinary efforts that people in the FBI/DOJ and on the left made to prevent it's release. If you go back and read what everybody from Rothstein to Pelosi said, the release of the memo would open up the entire U.S. security apparatchik to the eyes of our enemies. It would be a disaster. Are you kidding me???

Trump should simply fire Rothstein for the vehemence that Rothstein exhibited to suppress the meaningless memo. I had a good friend at work twenty years ago who was fired for "using bad business judgement." In my view, Rothstein's opposition to the release of the memo is emblematic of the fact that he has lost his way, putting the interests of the Bureau above the interests of the American people who pay his salary. He should be fired because of that; he's lost his perspective.

Francisco D said...If that is not your point, what do you have to say that is at least minimally relevant?

With greater than 99% approval rate there is currently no strong evidence either that they considered it necessary to lie to get approval or that they would have needed to. The law is the problem. The surveillance state is the problem. The selective attention on one case without considering the totality of the problem is straightforwardly hypocritical.

IIRC, the FISA court, which approves 99.8% of all warrant applications (per Greenwald) turned down two approval requests before finally giving the green light. Why isn’t more being made of the initial rejections?

"Do you realize how close you have effectively come, to describing Stephen Miller?"

I didn't realize that both his parents and brothers had close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, long considered by the US to be a terrorist organization, like Huma's did and still do have. This is the organization that is considered by many to be the philosophical father of al Quada, the Taliban, and likely ISIS. The decades long close relationship with that organization by the rest of her family is why she wouldn't have received a security clearance, if it hadn't been for her relationship with the Clintons.

Without prompting from DOJ/FBI counter-intelligence officials, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele would not have paid any attention to Carter Page, who had no significant relationship with Trump and his associates.

In mid-2016, Carter Page still was only a potential tool to use against Trump. In order to turn Page into a useful tool, two developments needed to happen.

1) Page had to be maneuvered into frequent interaction with Trump and his associates. For example, Page had to be included into Trump's campaign staff.

2) Page had to be elevated from merely Title VII up to Title I of the FISA rules. To accomplish that elevation, the DOJ/FBI needed some more "evidence" that Page was an AGENT of the Russian Intelligence service.

Fusion GPS could not help DOJ/FBI with the first development, but it could and did help DOJ/FBI with the second development. The first development is becoming clear now, thanks to the Nunez memorandum.

I hope that future research will provide information about how the first development was accomplished -- how Page was included into Trump's campaign staff.

The public never will receive any explanation of these developments from Robert "The FBI Whitewasher" Mueller and his bogus, disgraceful "investigation".

The public will receive an explanation only from the US Congress -- and only while it is controlled by the Republicans.

”I want to know exactly what the language was and how deceptive it may have been”

I need to read it myself (declassify the FISA application) or I don’t believe it. Remember all the way back to the day before yesterday when we were told the memo disclosed sources and methods? That releasing it threatened national security? These people lie.

Given the torturous reasoning we have seen from some courts (judges) regarding various immigration initiatives, it should not surprise anyone here that a Judge on the FISC might go out of his way to allow surveillance of the Trump group.

Though I disagree with Cookie's conspiracy theory about how we are are raised I agree wholeheartedly with the last part of his comment:

"The founders of the nation were well aware of the danger of unchecked power in the hands of government--having experienced it from the British. The Bill of Rights exists because of their clear-sighted awareness of what governments--all governments--do."

Except that it was not the Founders, per se, but a large minority - enough to defeat ratification - of The People that refused to ratify the new Constitution until they were guaranteed that there would be a bill of Rights amended to the proposed Constitution.

Greenwald says FISA court a joke because they approve almost all applications for warrants. This is a ridiculous statement. If one year Ann gave an A to every student does that mean her grading is a joke or that everyone deserved an A. There are procedures in place at doj such that a warrant won't be sought unless almost certain to be approved.

The memo does not reveal that they lied. The memo is Trump's and Nunes' opinions. These are not men with high credibility. Trump is a born liar. But, the law is also bad. We can't fix Trump but we can fix the law.

The Nunez memorandum merely mentioned that the DOJ/FBI obtained the FISA warrant not under Title VII, but failed to explain the significance to the public.

The public should be informed:

* Was Carter Page classified under Title VII before October 21, 2016?

* If so, when did that classification of Page begin?

* What kind of incriminating evidence is normally required to elevate a subject from merely Title VII up to Title I?

* What more exculpatory explanation is normally required from the DOJ/FBI by a FISA judge when considering a motion to elevate a subject from merely Title VII up to Title I?

* What more investigative methods are allowed to the FBI after a subject has been elevated from merely Title VII up to Title I?

* After a subject has been elevated from merely Title VII up to Title I, then how does that affect the privacy of a person who happens to communicate with the AGENT of the foreign Intelligence service.

As it stands right now, the memo doesn’t mean much more than Nunes’ own opinion.

In a Friday night appearance on Special Report with Bret Baier, the man whose name has become synonymous with the memo, Representative Devin Nunes, admitted something huge. At about 1:00 into the interview, Nunes admits that he didn’t even read the underlying evidence, specifically the FISA applications, that supposedly back up the memo’s claims.

Who has read the documentation? Representative Trey Gowdy. Who has also been vocally supportive of Mueller and the investigation, as well as the intelligence community, and is not seeking re-election

“Who has read the documentation? Representative Trey Gowdy. Who has also been vocally supportive of Mueller and the investigation, as well as the intelligence community, and is not seeking re-election.”

Meanwhile Mark Tapscott reminds us that the FBI is used to be used by the Clintons against their perceived enemies and having the press cover for them. Back in 1993, just a month after William Jefferson Clinton was sworn in, some 400 highly confidential files on Reagan and Bush political appointees wound up in the hands of the Clintons. How'd that happen and why did that happen? No one working for the FBI was eager to say and no one in the mainstream media was eager to ask.

“The memo contends that by not stating the partisan origin of the research, prosecutors obscured a possible political motive for the surveillance of Mr. Page, marking a “troubling breakdown of legal processes.” But the document’s claims are difficult to evaluate without access to the underlying, highly classified law-enforcement material that it was based on. It also doesn’t address or dispute the research collected by Mr. Steele that was included in the warrant application, and it recommends no changes to U.S. intelligence programs. …

The memo is critical of Mr. Steele and notes that prosecutors in their application for the warrant didn’t explicitly state that he was working for a firm funded by Democrats. But the FISA application did disclose Mr. Steele was being paid by a law firm working for a major political party, according to a person familiar with the matter. Redacting the names of U.S. people or organizations who aren’t the subject of an investigation is a common practice in government legal filings, designed to protect privacy.”

The DOJ/FBI requested that some bits of information be removed from the Nunez memorandum.

I speculate that the removed information was that Carter Page already had been under FBI surveillance under Title VII of FISA for a long time -- for months and even years.

Therefore, what happened on October 21, 2016, was that Page was elevated from merely Title VII up to Title I,

Before the revision demanded by DOJ/FBI, the memorandum had explained the change of Page's status clearly.

Before the revision, the reader would understand that what the Fusion dossier enabled DOJ/FBI to do was to reclassify Page as a Russian-Intelligence AGENT who was trying to obtain intelligence and cooperation from US persons -- in particular from US persons associated with Trump.

Let's try one more analogy. If a cop arrests someone solely based on the word of a known racist who hates him, and that's it. That's the primary cause for the arrest. The only other evidence is circumstantial (he was seen around the crime scene, etc.)

Do you think that if the police hid the fact their source was a racist who hated the defendant that would be OK?

ARM said:”Regarding Nunes' credibility Red State said...As it stands right now, the memo doesn’t mean much more than Nunes’ own opinion. In a Friday night appearance on Special Report with Bret Baier, the man whose name has become synonymous with the memo, Representative Devin Nunes, admitted something huge. At about 1:00 into the interview, Nunes admits that he didn’t even read the underlying evidence, specifically the FISA applications, that supposedly back up the memo’s claims.Who has read the documentation? Representative Trey Gowdy. Who has also been vocally supportive of Mueller and the investigation, as well as the intelligence community, and is not seeking re-election “

The problem here is that the Dems only see GET TRUMP in this story. I'm more worried about the FBI misconduct which seems present here and in another case that lefties want to ignore because they hate the victims: the Cliven Bundy family.

In calendar year 2016, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court denied 9 applications in full and 26 applications in part. For an additional 339 applications, the Court modified the orders sought, while for 1,378 applications, the Court granted the orders sought without modification. Starting this year, the report contains orders denied in part as a separate category, rather than including them in the category of "orders modified."

Newly released data by the US Courts show that the Washington DC.-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) rejected nine applications during the final year of the Obama administration's tenure.

It's the largest number of requests the FISA court has denied in its entire four-decade history.

By comparison, the court announced at its last year's count that it didn't reject any government surveillance requests, which historically is not irregular.

The report shows that 1,752 applications were made during 2016 to allow the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to intercept phone calls and emails. Breaking down that overall figure, the court said it permitted 1,378 requests in full, while 339 requests were granted after modification.

The court's new reporting methods also revealed that the FISA court also rejected parts of 26 requests submitted by the NSA and the FBI.

In other words, just 0.5 percent of all surveillance requests last year were denied.

By comparison, since 1979 to date, the court has approved 40,117 warrants but only rejected 21 requests. That's a rejection rate of 0.052 percent.

If the FISA court was not told Clinton paid for it, just "a political party did," before very recently, the public perception was that Republicans had paid for it. This is not true, in part because the reporting was bad, and in part because Clinton and the DNC lied to reporters.

Matthew Sablan, you are the one misinterpreting the minimization rules and FISA. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, United States corporations are United States persons! (Even if the DNC and Clinton campaign were not actually incorporated, they would be unincorporated associations that are defined as US persons for FISA purposes because they are mostly composed of US citizens and green card holders.)

The documents I linked do not say that the DNC or Clinton campaigns' identities should have been minimized. They also do not say those identities should not be minimized. As you point out, those minimization rules do not apply to cases where the identities are simply those of people who funded the creation of a source document. Other minimization rules might apply; I do not know.

Even if no minimization rules apply, the idea of minimization might be pushed as an explanation/excuse for not specifically identifying the DNC or Clinton campaign. I simply offered the idea and some explanatory documents, mostly so that people could chew on it before it was raised by people who (unlike me) will actually defend it.

"No. I did not assert that the Dossier was paid for by Republicans. Oppo Research was started by a conservative news outlet. Then after that it was paid for by Democrats."

-- That deliberately misstates what was done. Remember: For most of 2016 and 2017, it was believed the dossier WAS THE OPPOSITION RESEARCH because people foolishly believed the DNC and Clinton that they never paid for anything.

I think given this all transpired with a presidential election overhead required explicit mention of who solicited and paid for the information. And FISC should have asked. This not some local dog catcher election FPS. Can’t hide behind the “norms”.

So FBI and others say release of memo will undermine intelligence gathering and lo, a post with commenters undermining intelligence gathering.

Meanwhile, the unstated premise of this post is that the memo was deceptive about what FISA applications contained but we won't know how deceptive until release of Schiff memo which Republicans are stalling on to give POTUS space for more batshit crazy spin.

"Meanwhile, the unstated premise of this post is that the memo was deceptive about what FISA applications contained but we won't know how deceptive until release of Schiff memo which Republicans are stalling on to give POTUS space for more batshit crazy spin."

-- Republicans are not stalling. The House agreed on rules for declassifying. Nunes followed those rules; Schiff skipped doing his homework, and then tried to sabotage Nunes' release by claiming he needed to wait for Schiff to do his homework. Schiff's memo is undergoing the same process Nunes' did.

Except that Schiff illegally leaked his memo to the NYT and others prior to release, because he is an asshole who doesn't actually care about National Security.

Take off your own tin foil hat and stop watching Fox News.——————————————"The government has a duty to provide enough information to the courts to weigh the evidence.” They DID."———————————————-“How can you possibly know that, Inga?

“Are you aware of Andy McCabe's sworn congressional testimony?”——————————————-Andy McCabe in his testimony stated that the Dossier was a PART of the criteria used to obtain the Dossier, he also said that other information was used, as well.———————————————On Friday, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, took issue with the memo’s characterization of McCabe’s comments, saying the former FBI deputy director was speaking generally about how any FISA application relies on “each and every component” included.

@Althouse, remember the other day when I commented that I would compliment you when you’re right and tease you when you’re wrong? Well this is IMAO one of your most thoughtful posts ever. A couple points I would like to add:

First, I think you erred by not considering that the FBI officials did some judge-shopping to find someone with a visceral hatred of Trump. We now know that our judiciary is riddled with them and it’s not just Ruth Bader Ginsberg and an idiot out in Hawaii. Such a judge wouldn’t even think to ask tough follow up questions regarding the identity of the “political entity” that had paid for the information on which the warrant was based. I would be remiss not to point out that others upthread have commented about the possibility that judge-shopping was involved.

Second, there’s a nuance here that people who live in more rational places than Washington, DC, won’t get.* Terms like “ample disclosure“ and “adequately caveated” are weasel-words that mean, roughly, “if cornered, we can point out ways that what we wrote could conceivably be interpreted what you’re saying we didn’t cover [wink, wink]”. This transfers fault from the folks who (artfully) wrote the memo to the folks reading it. _______________* Though how much more rational Madison is ... is debatable.

Cookie comments: No. When it comes to tough calls, it's easy: Spying on Americans in general--that's you, me, and everyone--and on political opponents--violates everyone's privacy and Constitutional rights, and discovery of such spying should be prosecuted and not permitted by looking away, or, worse, by "legalizing" it.

If it comes down (for some reason) to a choice between the two, fuck the politicians, it is the American people who are sovereign and whose rights are paramount.

Absolutely right! And, if it's true that over 99% of FISA applications are approved [and probably extended ad infinitum] then the issue is far more heinous than just a political ploy. This is only a glimpse into the dark doings of the Deep State.

Why did Shiff resist so furiously the publication of the Nunez memorandum?

Because before the revisions demanded by DOJ/FBI, the memorandum explained that Carter Page already had been investigated for a long time -- for months and even years -- under FISA's Title VII. In that status, the FBI was limited to treating Page as a US Person who was being contacted by Russia's Intelligence service.

If the public understood that the Fusion dossier provided the extra "evidence" that DOJ/FBI needed to elevate Page from merely Title VII up to Title I, then the public might push much more critically for more revelations about the real role played in this development by DOJ/FBI.

Right now, Shiff, the Deep State and its media mouthpieces have duped the public into thinking mistakenly that the Fusion dossier merely authorized the FBI to investigate Carter Page because he was being contacted by the Russian Intelligence service.

In fact, the FBI already had been authorized long ago to investigate Page from that perspective. For a long time already, the FBI had been authorized to capture all communications between Page and suspected agents of the Russian Intelligence service.

The public still is far from understanding that the DOJ/FBI wanted much more authorization -- to treat Page as an AGENT and thus to capture all communications between Page and any US persons in accordance with FISA's Title I.

Now that Shiff and the Deep State have managed to revise Nunez's memorandum, they will make a big deal that the DOJ/FBI had good grounds -- even without the dossier -- to investigate Page. After all, the DOJ/FBI had evidence that the Russian Intelligence service might have tried to recruit Page to become an agent of the Russian Intelligence service.

What Shiff and the Deep State do not want the public to understand is that the dossier enabled the DOJ/FBI to convince the FISA judge that Page indeed had become an agent of the Russian Intelligence service.

Since Page had become an agent, all his communications with any other US persons could be captured by the FBI. Furthermore, those other US persons' subsequent communications could be captured too.

Before 2008, people on the far left and Partisan Democrats were concerned about spying on brownish Americans that worshiped Allah and had funny sounding names. Partisan Republicans didn't concern themselves because they trusted the Bush administration to do the right thing and not abuse their power. I think Snowden revealed there was some abuse going on and that continued with the Obama Admin. There have been libertarian leaning Republicans like Rand Paul and Justin Amash who bucked their party and agreed with the Dems.

Now we have a bizarro world version of that happening now. Partisan Republicans are now concerned about spying on American citizens because it occurred to people connected to the Trump campaign. Partisan Democrats say, "Nothing to see here, everything's cool. The FBI and DOJ is awesome!" But guess what, people like Robert Cooke and Glenn Greenwald and Rand Paul and Justin Amash haven't changed their tune! They've been concerned about this the entire time. I think it's time we started listening to them. Partisan administrations are going to abuse their power, whether it's with Muslim Americans or guys who travel to Russian or Far Right Ranchers in Nevada.

This has very little to do with Trump and everything to do with the 4th Amendment.

I think that the preaching about the need for unqualified support for law enforcement is pretty rich in terms of whose side you find yourself on in the whole Black Lives Matter debate.

Oh yeah, and the enforcement of immigration laws! Not even allowed to call an illegal alien “illegal”! Millions of scabs coming to the US, undermining the pay of Americans not to mention the workplace protections in our laws.

So if you obtain information regarding a ring of us citizens who are foreign spies, and you don't want your identity to become public because you fear for your life and that of your family, are you less or more likely to provide that information to the FBI after the release of the memo? Answer is pretty clear if you are objective and fair minded.